GEF-6 GEF Secretariat Review for Programmatic Framework Document*
The GEF/ldcf/sccf Trust Funds

  
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

GEF ID:	9264	
Country/Region:	Global (Central African Republic, Cameroon, China, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Myanmar, Pakistan, Sao Tome and Principe, Tanzania)	
Program Title:	TRI The Restoration Initiative â€“ Fostering Innovation and Integration in Support of the Bonn Challenge	
GEF Agency:	IUCN, FAO and UNEP	GEF Agency Project ID:		
Type of Trust Fund:	GEF Trust Fund	GEF Focal Area (s):	Multi Focal Area	
GEF-6 Focal Area/ LDCF/SCCF Objective (s):	BD-4 Program 9; CCM-2 Program 4; LD-2 Program 3; LD-3 Program 4; SFM-3; SFM-4; 	
Anticipated Financing  PPG:		Program Grant:	$54,133,704	
Co-financing:	$201,450,937	Total Program Cost:	$255,584,641	
PIF Approval:		Council Approval/Expected:	June 01, 2016	
Program Manager:	Ulrich Apel	Agency Contact Person:		

Review Criteria	Questions	Secretariat Comments 	Agency Response 	
Program Consistency	1.	Is the program aligned with the relevant GEF strategic objectives and results framework?	08/04/2015
The program is aligned with GEF-6 FA strategic objectives BD-4, CCM-2 LD-2, LD-3, SFM-3 and SFM-4. Particularly the program focuses on south-south cooperative approaches to landscape restoration within LD and SFM FAs. Aichi Targets identified.

09/29/2015
Please ensure that Component 1 addresses carbon stocks and emissions as best practices for policies are developed. Please ensure GEF climate change programming directions aiming to "Support policies and financial mechanisms to maintain and enhance carbon stocks or reduce emissions from LULUCF and agriculture" are adequately reflected in the text.

In Annex A please reconsider and confirm the eligibility of Child Projects with adaptation-related elements identified.

02/18/2016 UA:
Has been addressed. 

Cleared		

Program Design	2.	Is the description of the baseline scenario reliable, and based on sound data and assumptions?  Are the activities that will be financed using GEF/LDCF/SCCF funding based on incremental/ additional reasoning?	08/04/2015
The international situation is clearly described. Baseline efforts of other major landscape restoration initiatives are clearly described. Some country specific detail is provided within the policy framework section. Additional detail will be expected within child projects at time of CEO Endorsement.

Cleared		
	3.	Is the program framework (Table B) sound and sufficiently clear and appropriate to achieve program objectives and the GEBs?	08/04/2015
Yes the program framework is clear within it four linked components of policy development, implementation efforts, means to upscale and knowledge management and south-south learning efforts.

09/29/2015
Please ensure all indicators and targets in Table B are SMART.

Please provide the methodology used to determine the levels of GEBs indicated in Table F.

02/18/2016 UA:
Above issues have been addressed. 

ADDITION TO EARLIER REVIEW COMMENTS:
- Table B: Although the figures are only tentative, a > $10 million investment in component 3 appears to be on the high side based on the information provided. Please consider to reduce as appropriate and increase investment in component 2 instead. 
- page 13f: remove several references to "improved cook stoves", and "development of eco-tourism". At this stage, it would be more prudent to refer to "alternative livelihood options" and to leave the detailed options open to a participatory process.
- page 14: component 3 will focus on national capacity building efforts; it would be good to make this distinction to the global efforts that come under component 4.
- page 14: component 3 should include a mention to the envisaged cooperation with Barclay's Banking Initiative under the Bonn Challenge as discussed at the Bonn Challenge 2.0 event in Bonn. The feasibility of this cooperation may be further explored in the course of TRI development.
- page 17: Please insert figures for "XX".
- page 17: remove reference to "ridge to reef", which may cause misunderstandings as the program does not work on reefs.
- page 18: Please include a mention of resilience either under the heading 'innovation' (e.g. the new RAPTA framework of GEF/STAP could be tested in the program) or under the heading 'sustainability' (e.g. using resilience thinking in making restored landscapes resilient to climate change risks). Resilience is a cross-cutting theme that has relevance to the TRI and would need to be built into its further development.
- page 23: please include a mention of the new Afrika100 (AFR100) restoration initiative and linkages of the program with this initiative.

03/17/2016 UA:

All additional comments addressed.

Cleared		
	4.	Are socio-economic aspects, including relevant gender elements, indigenous people, and CSOs considered?	08/04/2015
The PFD contains sufficient detail at this stage. Further more detailed information on specific country and sub-national areas will be expected at time of CEO Endorsement.

Cleared		
	5.	Does the program take into account potential major risks, including the consequences of climate change, and describes sufficient risk response measures? (e.g., measures to enhance climate resilience)	08/04/2015
Key risks and mitigation measures are identified. Please ensure that at CEO Endorsement child projects include clear site specific analyses of risks and means of mitigation.

02/18/2016 UA:
ADDITION TO EARLIER REVIEW COMMENTS: Climate change risks have not been addressed under Part II, section 5. Please include Climate Change risks into the table and discuss mitigation measures in view of resilience thinking.

03/17/2016 UA:

All additional comments addressed.

Cleared		
	6.	If there is a non-grant instrument in the program, is the GEF Agency(ies) capable of managing it?	08/04/2015
There is no NGI.

Cleared		
	7.	Is the program coordinated with other related initiatives and national/regional plans in the country or in the region?	08/04/2015
Brief details of national policy and certain specific ongoing restoration initiatives are provided. Additional details of how the child projects tie into the full range of existing initiatives is expected by time of CEO Endorsement.

09/29/2015
The references to national communications are helpful for most of the countries. Notably Kenya and Pakistan are missing. Please confirm consistency with NCs.

02/18/2016 UA:
Has been addressed. 

Cleared		
	8.	Is the program implementation/ execution arrangement adequate?	08/04/2015
Brief details of the implementing arrangements of the program are provided, specifically the formation of the steering committee. Additional detail will be required at time of CEO Endorsement for the individual child projects and how these are implemented singly and in combination to form the program.

Cleared		
	9.	Does the program include a budgeted M&E Plan that monitors and measures results with indicators and targets?	08/04/2015
The PFD includes very brief details of M&E efforts within component 4. Supplementary details of M&E efforts will be expected in the child projects at time of CEO Endorsement.

02/18/2016 UA:
ADDITION TO EARLIER REVIEW COMMENTS: 
a) it is understood that M&E will be funded under component 4. Please include a footnote that indicates the tentative budget to be made available for the M&E plan as required per GEF project cycle rules. 

b) The idea of harmonizing M&E systems of child projects is welcome. Please consider to develop a tracking tool at program level tracking the progress towards program outcomes that may replace the individual child project tracking tools at CEO endorsement stage. Such a program tracking tool could be developed within the development of the global child project.

03/17/2016 UA:

All additional comments addressed.

Cleared		
	10.	Does the program have description of knowledge management plan?	08/04/2015
The KM plan is largely contained within the fourth component and focuses at developing the community of practice around restoration efforts.

Cleared		
Resource Availability	11.	Is the proposed Grant (including the Agency fee) within the resources available from (mark all that apply):			
	•	the STAR allocation?	08/04/2015
STAR resources for Cameroon, CAR, China, DRC, Guinea Bissau, Kenya, Myanmar, Pakistan, Sao Tome & Principe and Tanzania and as at 2130 08/04/2015 had sufficient  resources available.

Please address the following data issues:
ERROR - Programming of FUnds missing in FInance Breakdown
ERROR in PIF - FASF and Project Objective Cofin Amounts by Trust Funds Differ.
ERROR in PIF - Finance Breakdown and FASF GEF Project Grants differ
ERROR in PIF - Finance Breakdown and FASF GEF Project Grants per Trust Fund differ
ERROR in PIF - The sum of the cofinance as given per source differs from FASF's total cofinance

09/09/2015
Data amended.

09/29/2015
Please amend the information in Column 5 Table D "Programming of Funds" in line with mandatory requirements.

02/18/2016 UA:
- SFM incentive request for Kenya (FAO) to be adjusted in line with SFM program ratio of 2:1.
- SFM incentive request for Sao-Tome & Principe to be adjusted in line with SFM program ratio of 2:1.
- Myanmar's allocation towards the child project to be checked in view of latest plans of Myanmar for this project. Please inform OFP that a marginal adjustment would be triggered in the STAR allocation if the LD request remains unchanged: $500,000 would be charged to either BD or CC. 

Please adjust all figures that may be affected by above changes throughout the document. Please note that Carbon calculation Annexes for Kenya and STP include financial figures in the Carbon calculations, which may need to be changed in line with revised OFP endorsement letters.

- Table C: 
-- Please include the name of the country for the large amount of IFAD co- financing of $18.9 million. 
-- Please also check if there is more recent information on the co-financing that is listed in [ ... ] as part of the Kenya child project.

03/17/2016 UA:

All additional comments addressed.

Cleared		
	•	the focal area allocation?	refer to box 11		
	•	the LDCF under the principle of equitable access?	n/a		
	•	the SCCF (Adaptation or Technology Transfer)?	n/a		
	•	focal area set-aside?	08/04/2015
The program requests $3,836,500 from Objective SFM-4.

Cleared		
Secretariat Recommendation	

PFD Clearance	Is the PFD recommended for clearance to include in the work program?	08/04/2015
Not at this stage. Please address Data Issue Errors.

09/29/2015
Not at this stage. Please address issues above.

02/18/2016
Please resubmit a revised version addressing above review comments.

03/17/2016 UA:
All comments adequately addressed. Program Manager recommends the PFD for CEO clearance.		
Review Date (s)	Review*	August 04, 2015		
	Additional Review (as necessary)	September 29, 2015		
	Additional Review (as necessary)	February 18, 2016		
* This is the first time the Program Manager provides full comments for the program.  Subsequent follow-up reviews should be recorded. For specific comments for each 
section, please insert a date after comments.